3-D revival?

PeterIanStaker

I was just wondering, with Avatar, Alice in Wonderland et al in 3D, is this going to last? Will cinemas embrace 3D all over again, as a way of pulling in the crowds, or will it be a fad?


Do you think they'll 3D-ize other films and re-run them. (I know this thread is slightly giving out, but, f*ck it, I'd love to see the original, untouched Star Wars trilogy in 3d)


Thoughts?:)

AnonoBoy

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I know this thread is slightly giving out, but, f*ck it, I'd love to see the original, untouched Star Wars trilogy in 3d

It'd hardly be untouched if it was in 3D now would it?

I think it's here to stay to be honest. Immersive 3D has moved forward so much that it's gone beyond a gimmick and has become another tool for filmmakers. 3D TVs are being launched soon. Once you can watch it at home it's definitely not going anywhere.

PeterIanStaker

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It'd hardly be untouched if it was in 3D now would it?

I think it's here to stay to be honest. Immersive 3D has moved forward so much that it's gone beyond a gimmick and has become another tool for filmmakers. 3D TVs are being launched soon. Once you can watch it at home it's definitely not going anywhere.

I meant untouched as in without the extra CG that GL put in.

bnt

If a film was made in 2D, I fail to see how there could be any real benefit from converting it to 3D. Think of the amount of work involved, and for what? The director and cinematographer were thinking in 2D, sets were designed for 2D, and so on. The required 3D information was never captured in the first place, so it would need to be created artificially.

For example: when a single camera films an object in the foreground of a shot, that object blocks everything behind it from the camera. 3D is created using the equivalent* of two cameras; the second camera, due to its position, can see background detail that the first camera could not. But if that second camera was never there in the first place, that detail was never captured in the shot, so it must be created artificially. There are various ways of doing that e.g. if the camera and/or subject moved, the detail might have been captured at a different time and can be copied. A lot of expensive work, in other words.

Even the geeks at Wired Magazine have a list of The Top 10 movies that should never, ever, be converted to 3D, and guess what comes in at #1?

* e.g. dual lens, two real cameras, and/or virtual cameras. For Avatar, Cameron used a dual lens camera for live action, and a virtual camera to capture his camera moves for the CGI scenes, and mixed them up.

damselnat

bnt wrote: »

I

Even the geeks at Wired Magazine have a list of The Top 10 movies that should never, ever, be converted to 3D, and guess what comes in at #1?

Have to agree with their assessment of The Pirates movies :pac: Orlando Bloom in 3D, shudder

PeterIanStaker

Have to disagree with their #10. Alien chestburster in 3D would be awesome.:eek:

faceman

I hope 3D isnt the future of film. Its far too distracting for the wrong reasons. Colour saturation is weaker than good aul 2D film.

even when a speck of dust goes by in 3D, it diverts your attention from what you should be watching. Its kinda lazy film making.

bnt

bedlam wrote: »

Reduced cost of filming for 2d vs 3d with the added bonus of cashing in on the 3d fever that is happening. It paid off for Burton.

That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it was that Burton decided (or was compelled) to switch to 3D halfway through the process, something that was feasible because he was dealing with lots of green screen and CGI scenes. He didn't have the problems with background that I described, because it's CGI background. However, according to the reviews I've seen e.g. this, the switch from 2D to 3D shows on screen:

Avatar was an unqualified hit and is the standard bearer for 3D because the technology was so successfully integrated into the film. Alice is the opposite: the 3D often seems belaboured and is set against a largely flat background.

It sounds like the cast were shot in 2D, so when Burton put them in a 3D scene, they went a bit ... flat. :cool:

Besides, I should have made it clear that I was specifically talking about the conversion of conventionally-made 2D films to 3D, not filming in native 3D. Imagine Casablanca or Goodfellas in 3D. I don't know what is feasible with Star Wars Episode IV-VI - how much of was blue/green screen? (We know I-III were CGI-heavy - ask Jar Jar Binks.)

Mark Hamill

I wonder if any of the studios is looking at 3d simply as an anti piracy device-you cant record a film in the cinema if its in 3d, the camera wont pick it properly (or will it?)

InKonspikuou2

I hope it doesn't last. It's fine once in a while for certain films but to make it a mainstay for every big blockbuster would be just too much for me. 3D isn't our natural form of vision and it wrecks my head after a while.

MickShamrock

I think it's just a fad which will pass.

MikeHoncho

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I wonder if any of the studios is looking at 3d simply as an anti piracy device-you cant record a film in the cinema if its in 3d, the camera wont pick it properly (or will it?)

Bingo. This is exactly what its about in my opinion.

pinksoir

InKonspikuou2 wrote: »

3D isn't our natural form of vision.

.......:D

grimm2005

If 3D tv's kick off and it becomes a standard feature in the majority of them (like HD), i think it could be here to stay. That's not to say it would replace regular 2D in the long run, I reckon they would co-exist side by side

Magic Eight Ball

grimm2005 wrote: »

I reckon they would co-exist side by side

Vinly V cd
(I know which one I prefer, Analog is king):pac:

AttackThePoster

MickShamrock wrote: »

I think it's just a fad which will pass.

Alice in Wonderland : Worldwide: $227,085,561
Avatar : Worldwide: $2,603,372,512
Up: Worldwide: $723,012,453
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs: Worldwide: $227,240,992
Coraline: Worldwide: $122,996,154
Beowulf: Worldwide: $196,393,745
Bolt: Worldwide: $308,332,675
A Christmas Carol: Worldwide: $323,558,129


Etc.

ziedth

No way will it pass IMO,

Although faceman made a good point. I think some films will be the better for it! Disaster movies for example or the
more obvious avatar.

Flamed Diving

A gimmick. Although I did enjoy A Christmas Carol, but that's a cartoon. Maybe that's where the heart of 3D lies. Cartoon characters prancing around a screen.

jaykhunter

I imagine 3D is really helping combat piracy somewhat, because of the spectacle that is 3D, people go to the cinema because it's an experience...until 3DTVs are commonplace.

Old films can't "really" be made in 3D, but they can have 2D images at different depths (like a diorama), which really isn't anything to marvel at (Coraline uses this kind of 'diorama' 3D)

I don't think 3D will be leaving anytime soon. In ten years hopefully they'd have it perfected and maybe iMAX domes will be the future....of course getting more money in the process

Best to just hold out for the Holodeck

J1

Personally I hate 3D, think it takes from the movie rather than adds. Can I ask u experts something though. Can it have serious side effects? I went to see Alice in Wonderland and felt sick while watching it, headache motion sickness etc, one of my kids had a terrible headache too. I had to keep closing my eyes throughout. The main characters were clear but everything behind it was blurred, it was really unpleasant. My eyes were still hurting a couple of days later and I still had a feeling of motion sickness for a couple of days. Really wondering if it can have that kind of long term effect, reading lots of different cases of people reporting the same thing after watching Avatar.

Sleazus

Once it gets into people's homes (and Sky is already talking about broadcasting in it), it's pretty much here to stay.

speedboatchase

Alice in Wonderland is after getting the highest opening weekend in America outside of Summer and Winter, 6th best of all time. Avatar had over 70-80% 3D ticket sales and will gross $1bn over the former highest grossing movie of all time. 3D is not a fad, customers are responding to it and don't mind paying a few quid extra so from now on every single big-budget movie will rely on 3D to cover the majority of their costs. The only problem I forsee is in misuse of the 3D effect, which might factor in 3D possibly losing its lustre and becoming gimmicky to audiences. As 3D is the new goldrush, there will be a grab for greedy studios to bolt on the effect in post-production, rather than make it an ongoing filming process like in Avatar. If this continues to happen the public could lose faith and not see the value and opt for regular tickets in the long run. For now though, I think 3D is absolutely here to stay and will probably extend the lifespan of certain franchises whose next sequels will include 3D implemntation and dwarf the grosses of the predecessors. As for 3D as home entertainment, the jurys still out IMO

stevenmu

I hope it stays, it's a reason to go back to the cinema again, it brings the spectacle aspect back to watching a film in the cinema. For 2d, my TV and speakers at home are good enough and the only reason to go to the cinema is for something that I just can't wait for.

I think that as 3D becomes more established, it will get better and better, directors will become more familiar with it and arrange shots better etc.

AttackThePoster

From Newstalk's Movies:

Is 3-D breathing new life into the movies. Following on from the success
of Avatar, Alice In Wonderland grossed a staggering $210m dollars at the international box office last weekend. In Ireland, Alice In Wonderland was

The No 1 Disney opener of all time with a gross for the three days of €1.15m- surpassing the previous three-day record holder Pirates Of The Caribbean 3 (€1.1m)

The biggest 3-D opener of all time in Ireland, beating Avatar’s opening weekend by 56 per cent.

The biggest March opening in Irish box office history and also the best opening for a Johnny Depp film in Ireland.

According to Disney, 3-D was the “big driver” in the movie’s success – it generated almost 80 per cent of its total box office. Unlike in the early 50s ( Hondo, Dial M For Murder, House Of Wax), 3-D is here to stay this time. Up to 20 movies will be released in the format this year. In the US cinemas are racing to meet the demand for 3-D, installing 100 to 150 new screens a month – but there are still only 4,000 in North America.

The process is now such a money-spinner the big companies like Warner Bros. are converting movies to 3-D after they are made. Clash Of The Titans and the two-part Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows have been converted post production. This process takes about 10 weeks and in the case of
Clash Of The Titans, it added $4.6m to the cost of the movie.

Up to now it is mainly animation movies that have been in 3-D –big summer releases Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3 will be in the process-but the success of Avatar and Alice In Wonderland will encourage studios to think of a much wider use of 3-D. Some commentators in America have compared it to moving from black and white to colour. It gives movies in the cinema real event status-this is an experience that you can’t get on DVD.

uncleoswald

AnonoBoy wrote: »

it's gone beyond a gimmick and has become another tool for filmmakers.

I have to disagree. It still has an amusement park ride quality about it and since to this day it hasn't added a single thing emotionally to a movie it will only add to the the dumbing down of cinema. Are movies not already too geared towards the taste of 15 year old boys?

Orlaladuck

I think it's not a huge problem and it more than likely will be here to stay.
It's a shame though because some people can't actually see 3D - my dad for example. So if all movies suddenly become 3D, that's cinema-going cut out as a pass time for those people. Also as mentioned up there, if you're feeling sick that means you should stick to the 2D. I'm pretty sure it has its side effects like that.
I think 3D works well for some movies but realistically a movie shouldn't Need 3D to be a good one. I refuse to pay extra money to see movies in 3D when I can see them in 2D like movies started as. It's a big step for the industry but it shouldn't be a necessity for a movie to sell. It suits cartoons and action movies well enough but what about movies dependent on dialogue and acting? Where's its use there?

L'prof

Orlaladuck wrote: »

if all movies suddenly become 3D

I honestly can't stand all this 3d lark, in it's current format it's just not for me and would have to come on a helluva lot for me to watch 3d films on a regular basis!

What drives me nuts too is all this "Oh, did you see (insert film here) in 3d? It was great" or "You went to see it in 2d? Why? Sure that defeats the purpose!", argh £"$%!$%!$%$

/rant

Orlaladuck

That's the worst! "it defeats the point!"
No, it doesn't. I don't need something flying at me to make it a better movie thanks :cool:

sprinkles

It is a gimmick imo. I saw Avatar in 3D and after the initial wow factor I zoned out of the 3D experience. The only result of 3D is that you will see more films with stuff flying at the screen to give you that wow factor.

It's clearly a system designed to combat piracy first and foremost and is leaving an awful lot of people out in the cold - people with impaired or no vision in 1 eye, a large minority of people can't see in 3D (I'm talking about the polarized 3D - not real life!), and lot of people complain about motion sickness when watching films in 3D. For these reason I think it's only a matter of time before people start returning to the 2D screens.

And I didn't even mention to extra cost!